up-country_sinclair

I hope the OP returns with information about how to get a catalogue.

It's probably best of bad options for the UN to be the lead agency in this situation. The idea of NATO or any coalition of Western countries is going to be a big problem.

A better option would be for neighbors and those with positive influence in Syria to map out a strategy for dealing with the situation, but that's not likely to happen.

These are well thought out opinions presented in a refreshingly succinct manner.

Yes, I agree that many of Syria's neighbors will not be inclined to be an influence of positive change. This is regrettable, but it is the situation we find ourselves in; and that situation is untenable. That's why I believe UN or NATO action (while certainly problematic) will be the best available and most realistic option going forward.

Syrian opposition groups are requesting a "no fly" zone from the UN.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203405504576599150728062020.html

Any thoughts or opinion on this development?

This type of news story will prompt Islamophobes to make derogatory comments about Islam, KSA, Muslims, etc..., but IMO this is undoubtedly a step in the right direction for the all of the people (men and women) who live in KSA. Here's hoping the King stays on this path...and other nations follow.

Human rights groups just raised the estimated death toll to 3,600. How many deaths is deemed sufficient to conclude sanctions ain't working?

So just to confirm, you're suggesting that government policy should be determined by estimates made by human right's groups.

Are you sure about that? Think hard.

My biggest complaint with FF is that it is a resource hog. Hopefully the improvements in 7 will address that with more than lip service.

When the Dollar hits 36

36 Satang?

Well that's 0-5 on proffering an opinion on the OP.

Now then, on to your queries:

Since your desired path of diplomacy first seems to have failed, are we now in the sanctions stage?

As noted in post # 11, discussions about sanctions are currently ongoing due to China and Russia threatening a veto at the UN(have you been paying attention, chuckd?).

So yes, this could reasonably be considered the beginning of the sanctions stage.

Should these sanctions fail to provide the desired results, would you then suggest we unleash NATO?

Again as noted in post # 6 (in response to YOUR question ), yes, I think that NATO bombings should be on the table if diplomacy and sanctions prove ineffective.

0-4

Anyway, here are the current sanctions the US has imposed on Syria:

There are currently three types of sanctions that the U.S. government has imposed against Syria. The most comprehensive sanction, called the Syria Accountability Act (SAA) of 2004, prohibits the export of most goods containing more than 10% U.S.-manufactured component parts to Syria. Another sanction, resulting from the USA Patriot Act, was levied specifically against the Commercial Bank of Syria in 2006. The third type of sanction contains many Executive Orders from the President that specifically deny certain Syrian citizens and entities access to the U.S. financial system due to their participation in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, association with Al Qaida, the Taliban or Osama bin Laden; or destabilizing activities in Iraq and Lebanon.

http://damascus.usembassy.gov/sanctions-syr.html

Russia and China have threatened to veto economic sanctions on Syria causing the US and European nations to rethink their strategy.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/western-powers-drop-syria-sanctions-call-20110928-1kvuv.html

Why should I offer an opinion to a rhetorical statement?

An opinion on the OP, chuckd. The OP.

Curiously you proposed the same action that has been taken in Libya, having learned little from that ongoing adventure.

This thread is not about Libya (again, chuckd, it goes back to the OP), yet despite all evidence to the contrary, you seem to be suggesting that NATO operations in Libya have not been a success. And of course you realize that NATO began operations in Libya in March 2011, right? Not 2001 or 2003.

Nowhere in the OP does it state that some military action might be required. That was your statement.

I never claimed the thread was about Libya. I merely said your proposed action of NATO air strikes in Syria was hauntingly similar to the action taken by NATO in Libya.

A discussion of when the action in Libya began is, however, off topic. You may choose to pursue that line of thought if you wish.

C'mon chuckd, you can muster up an opinion about OP on this thread, can't you?

You're 0-3 so far.

Why should I offer an opinion to a rhetorical statement?

An opinion on the OP, chuckd. The OP.

Curiously you proposed the same action that has been taken in Libya, having learned little from that ongoing adventure.

This thread is not about Libya (again, chuckd, it goes back to the OP), yet despite all evidence to the contrary, you seem to be suggesting that NATO operations in Libya have not been a success. And of course you realize that NATO began operations in Libya in March 2011, right? Not 2001 or 2003.

This needs to resolved, but Florida has both a significant Cuban community and 25 electoral votes. For this reason talks won't begin until at least the first Wednesday of November 2012.

Syria should immediately end the violent repression of its people, and if it does not, some type of military action may be required.

By whom and in what manner?

Well, since you've asked (curiously without offering your opinion), I would suggest the following course of action: direct and back channel diplomacy, followed by meaningful economic sanctions, and if no progress is made, NATO air strikes.

Syria should immediately end the violent repression of its people, and if it does not, some type of military action may be required.

Citizens of EU countries should be proud.

Over one million Jews have left Russia and emigrated to Israel because of anti-Semitism.

Link? That specifically states this as the sole or even primary reason.

And it would also be interesting to know how long these Russians had been Jewish before deciding to emigrate to Israel. These sudden conversions may well be the reason why many of the Russians emigres have encountered so much difficulty being accepted into Israeli society.

Russia is supplying weapons to both Syria and Hizbullah.

Link? That clearly states that the Russian govt. is directly supplying weapons to Hezbollah.

Of course, these links should be credible and not simply a propaganda video posted on youtube.

I only wish our elected officials would do the same.

Not act as a proxy vote for others benefit gaining us ever more enemies.

It is often repeated here that the US does what they do because Israel is an ally.

Well if we acted more in line with what our forefathers instructed in regards to Foreign policy we would have many more allies.

Instead we kowtow to one & create more enemies

China and Russia are looking out for the best interests of their respective countries. Inexplicably, the US is looking out for Israel's best interest while putting itself in jeopardy. This needs to end.

So for all the times when China and Russia vote with the US and Israel are they still voting with despots?

Several posts deleted. If you are going to use a quote then credit the quote and provide a link.

My post is gone so I assume that's directed at me. Sorry, I thought someone posted a link to the transcript of the speech already.

Let me try again.

Abbas made many great points during his historic speech on Friday, but what was particularly momentous is that someone finally articulated at the UN what Israeli policy in East Jerusalem amounts to: ethnic cleansing.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4126571,00.html

I love these posts about Israel being such great ally of the US.

Considering that Israeli intelligence agencies are constantly spying and stealing US defense and intellectual property secrets, and openly defying the US on illegal settlements and many other issues, blowing up the US Liberty and killing 34 military personnel and injuring 170 others. Yet still lining up to take $3,000,000,000 in welfare every year.

With friends like these....

Of course Netanyahu showed up, in doing so he at least had his point of view entered into the record

Hold on.

What did you refer to this resolution as earlier? Oh yes, that's right, "a charade".

So your position is that he traveled all the way to NY to have his view entered into the record---for a charade. You do realize of course that Israel has a ambassador to the UN?

If he simply wanted his view on the record, any number of Israeli diplomats could have entered it quite effectively. Netayahu personally went to NY because he fears this vote and he was trying to apply pressure to other nations to abstain. But it was clearly a wasted trip. An article in Politico this morning noted the thunderous applause for Abbas and the only people clapping for Netanyahu were the Israeli delegation and a handful of spectators in the gallery. Ouch.

The world is finally ready to deal with the Israel problem, and Netanyahu will try anything to derail it.

he yet again offered talks without preconditions

I beginning to think that you don't know what the expression "without preconditions" means.

Netanyhu does, but he was simply lying.

Hi

On the wireless router in my home I use WPA 2 to protect against someone hacking my signal--either for piggybacking or more nefarious intent. When I'm away from home I frequently use a CAT CDMA dongle, and I wonder if the signal could be intercepted between the dongle and the tower. If so, should I refrain from doing internet banking with the dongle?

Or am I just being paranoid?

Thanks.

UCS

this charade has nothing whatsoever to do with bilateral negotiations.

If it was a charade, why did Netanyhu travel to the UN to personally speak against it? If it truly were a charade then an extremist like Netanyahu would have stayed home and ignored it. If it was a charade, why was Israel ferociously lobbying nearly every nation to abstain from voting? Because he (and everyone else) knows what this resolution means: It will be on record that the overwhelming majority of the world's nations support Palestinian statehood, and with non-member observer status, Palestine will be able to bring Israel in front of the International Criminal Court to answer for their acts of unbridled aggression.

And secondly, of course this resolution has nothing to do with bilateral negotiations. Why do you feel so inclined to state the obvious? Israel had its chance to engage in sincere negotiations, but chose instead to continue building illegal settlements. Bilateral talks can begin anew on a more level playing field very soon.

to this day the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state

To this day?

Netanyahu is the very first prime minister to introduce this sort of toxic rhetoric into the negotiations. Please stick to the facts.

And this underlines my previous point. Netanyahu has no interest in moving the peace process forward and the Israel problem will never be solved with him at the helm.

^

Of course you know that's what I meant. But in what proponents of current Israeli policy must see as truly discouraging times, I can understand how one would need to claim even the most minor of to 'victories'.

The Israeli people need to rise up and demand elected leaders who can find a new way forward. The current govt. is beholden to the most radical hard liners, and have put a barricade in front of any path towards peace.

The Israel problem will never be solved with extremists like Netanyahu dictating policy.